PEACE Interview Framework

The PEACE interview framework is a structured, non-accusatory model for conducting interviews and taking statements, widely used by law enforcement and integrity agencies as an alternative to confrontational interrogation techniques. The name is an acronym describing its five phases: Planning and preparation, Engage and explain, Account clarification and challenge, Closure, and Evaluation. In the context of a corruption investigation, PEACE-style interviewing is used to gather accurate, reliable accounts from reporting persons, witnesses, and the subject of the investigation, while minimising the risk that the interview process itself distorts or contaminates the evidence obtained.

1 The Five Phases

The framework structures an interview into five sequential phases. Planning and preparation requires the interviewer to define objectives, review available material, and anticipate the likely content and sensitivities of the interview before it begins. Engage and explain involves establishing rapport with the interviewee and clearly explaining the purpose, process, and ground rules of the interview, including any rights the interviewee may have. Account, clarification and challenge is the substantive core of the interview, in which the interviewee is invited to give a free, uninterrupted account before the interviewer probes for detail, clarifies ambiguities, and, where appropriate, puts inconsistencies or contrary evidence to the interviewee. Closure involves summarising what has been discussed, checking the interviewee's understanding and agreement with that summary, and explaining what happens next. Evaluation is the final phase, in which the interviewer reviews the interview against the original objectives and assesses what has been achieved and what, if anything, requires follow-up.

2 Origins and International Use

PEACE-style interviewing is commonly associated with the development of ethical interviewing standards in United Kingdom policing, arising in part from concerns about the reliability of confession evidence obtained through more confrontational interrogation methods. It has since been adopted, in various adapted forms, by law enforcement and integrity bodies in multiple jurisdictions internationally as a preferred alternative to accusatory interrogation. The specific institutional and historical origin of the model is not detailed in the National Anti-Corruption Commission's own guidance material, which describes and applies the framework without tracing its history; readers seeking a precise account of its UK policing origins should verify this independently against dedicated law enforcement or criminological sources.

3 Notice and Support in Corruption Investigations

When PEACE-style interviewing is applied within a corruption investigation, particular procedural safeguards are commonly built into the planning and engagement phases. Interviewees, particularly the subject of the investigation, are typically given reasonable notice of an upcoming interview, including a general outline of the issues to be discussed, so that they can prepare adequately rather than being asked to respond to unfamiliar allegations without warning. Interviewees are also commonly offered the opportunity to have an independent support person or legal representative present during the interview. These safeguards connect directly to the broader doctrine of procedural fairness, particularly the hearing rule, which requires that a person given the opportunity to respond to allegations be given a genuine and adequately informed opportunity to do so.

4 Recommended Order of Witnesses

Good practice in corruption investigations recommends a particular sequence for conducting interviews, designed to maximise the amount of relevant information available to the investigator before the most sensitive interviews take place. The recommended order is: first, the reporting person, who typically prompted the investigation and can provide an initial account and direction for further inquiry; second, other witnesses who are likely to have credible, relevant, or significant evidence bearing directly on the allegations; third, witnesses who can provide corroborating or supplementary information that rounds out the picture already developed; and fourth, the subject or subjects of the investigation, who are interviewed once the investigator has assembled as complete an evidentiary picture as practicable. This sequence is not mandatory and may be revised as the investigation develops. New information obtained late in the process may make it necessary to re-interview a witness already spoken to, or to depart from the planned order entirely; investigators are expected to treat the sequence as a starting framework rather than a fixed rule. See Evidence and Exhibit Handling for how information obtained through these interviews is recorded and preserved.

5 Comparative Practice: The Queensland CCC Approach

This recommended witness order is not unique to Commonwealth investigative guidance. The Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission's Best Practice Guide recommends a substantially similar sequence, interviewing the complainant first and the subject of the investigation last, on the same underlying rationale: interviewing witnesses in a sequence that builds the fullest possible evidentiary picture allows the investigator to conduct a more informed and effective interview when the subject is finally confronted with the allegations.^[1] The convergence between the two frameworks reflects a broadly shared understanding, across Australian integrity bodies, of how sequencing affects both the quality of evidence gathered and the fairness of the process to the person ultimately accused. See Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission.

See also: Conducting a Corruption Investigation, Evidence and Exhibit Handling.

References

1. Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission, Best Practice Guide: Fraud and Corruption Control.
2. Commonwealth of Australia, National Anti-Corruption Commission, Conducting internal investigations into corrupt conduct: A guide for Commonwealth agencies (updated July 2026).
3. Australian Government Investigations Standards 2022.